Looking at your definitions of “art” only the following could possibly apply to science:
2. the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature)
10. method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle; the art of writing letters
11. the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
12. artfulness; cunning
13. get something down to a fine art to become highly proficient at something through practice
All five are closely related. Science isn’t an art, though scientists interpret. In the case you’ve given one of the observers must be wrong. Science is finding out which one. Objective truth is the goal of science.
BTW your evolution examples are terrible. They just make your case weaker.
My examples make my case weaker, how?
You are the one who talked about “transitions” in evolution. As I pointed out, and used analogy to illustrate, there are no “transitions” in evolution; there is only a continuum. For there to be “transitional” forms, there must be discrete steps of evolution—and there aren’t. Why are you so attached to the existence of “transitional” forms?
And it looks like trying to explain the process of science to you is impossible. Read those definitions I posted again, you even repeated the pertinent ones back to me. Making sense of observations is a true art. And making sense is all we can ever hope for, because we cannot even know if we are right or wrong (and a wrong answer can be as logical as a correct one). Science is not like math, where you plug numbers into an equation and one or two correct answers pop up.